President Barack Obama delivered a sweeping address Thursday embracing the pro-democracy movements in the Mideast and North Africa. But the portion of his speech that sparked the most immediate controversy was a section in which he offered his most detailed public view of a possible Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement.

While analysts and advocates on both sides of the conflict have said this is not a good time for an aggressive U.S. push for peace, Obama disputed that analysis Thursday.

Text Size

-

+

reset

VIDEO: Obama's Mideast speech

VIDEO: Obama on Israel borders

POLITICO 44

“There are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward. I disagree,” Obama said. “At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. … Endless delay won’t make the problem go away.”

Obama did little to explain how, when or where stalled negotiations could be resumed. Yet ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House Friday, Obama called for Israel’s “1967 lines” to be the basis of a peace deal — an apparent reference to the country’s borders prior to the Six Day War in which Israel gained territory.

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state,” Obama said during his 45-minute address delivered at the State Department.

Soon after Obama’s speech, Netanyahu’s office responded via Twitter that such borders were “indefensible,” echoing longtime Israeli assertions that the country could not readily defend the pre-1967 borders when Israel was only nine miles wide at its narrowest point. In June 1967, Israel expanded its borders substantially by capturing Gaza, the West Bank, the Sinai and the Golan Heights.

Republican presidential hopefuls also reacted angrily.

“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” Mitt Romney charged in a statement. “He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends.”

Obama has not previously publicly referred to the pre-1967 borders as the basis for negotiations, but President George W. Bush effectively did so in 2005 when he suggested “the 1949 armistice lines” be the starting point for discussions.

“Does this break new ground for Barack Obama? Absolutely,” former mideast peace negotiator Aaron David Miller said. He called the formulation “more sensitive to Palestinian needs rather than to Israeli needs. … This is going to be more warmly received by European, Arab and Palestinian constituencies.”

Obama insisted that Palestinian territories in Gaza and the West Bank be connected in a new state. However, he also called for Palestine to be a demilitarized state — something Netanyahu proposed in 2009.

Obama publicly expressed concerns for the first time about a power-sharing deal reached last month — with the backing of the new Egyptian government — between the rival Palestinian factions of Fatah and Hamas, which is committed in its charter to destroying Israel. He did not explicitly denounce Hamas but spoke sternly of the need for the group to change course.

“Palestinians will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection,” Obama said.

The president also made his first public remarks discouraging Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s plan to ask the United Nations General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state. “Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state,” Obama said.

When it comes to middle-east, nothing is done easily. Hopefully Israel will show some genuine interest in achieving peace in the region and work with the President with an open mind. When keeping the tension going is their strategy, just like keeping the tension with India simmering is Pakistan's strategy, its very hard to move forward.

Now it's time for the pubes to belittle Obama's speech, even though he defended Israel, who pubes will abandon the Israeli's the minute peace is struck with the Palestinians. Israel is chocked full of "liberals" and once peace is reached with the Palestinians, "conservatives" realize that the game is up for them

"Obama gives aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, the same orginazation that is burning churches in Egypt. He really is lost, giving away valued and needed money we can use in the U.S.A. to aid terrorists, who have already said all peace agreements are null and void. They are burning churches. How in the world do they get away with that and get aid? "

At last, someone with the brass to push aside the political hypocisy of the last 7 decades that we have engaged in for reasons of oil and sucking up to Israel ( no matter what Israel does).

Either we support democracy or we do not. If we do not, it is the height of hypocrisy. We may not like the result of middle east democracy, nor will Israel, but we can't continue to support dictators who suck up to our interests while oppressing their own people.

As for Israel, both Israelis and Zionists here always tout it as the "only" democracy in the middle east, a laughable assertion. First, Israel is the most extreme THEOCRACY that pretends to be a secular atate in the world. Second, Israel is in fact a religous aparthied state, in which Muslims/Palestinians are segregated from full participation in the democracy.

"Obama gives aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, the same orginazation that is burning churches in Egypt. He really is lost, giving away valued and needed money we can use in the U.S.A. to aid terrorists, who have already said all peace agreements are null and void. They are burning churches. How in the world do they get away with that and get aid? "

At long last, a President who is telling the Israelis to go to hell and push to establish a full Palestine state with all the rights that go along with it. This will p i s s off the Jews soooooo much and the screaming will be heard around the world. Watch the Flak that comes with this decision as the Jews show their true color and that is of being Israeli firsters and not Americans first

Not a good idea, now Obama wants to "Spread the Wealth" to the middle East. What about this country?? We should come first. Let Saudi Arabia take care of their fellow muslims, they have plenty of our money they get from oil. What right does Obama have to tell these countries how to behave, I don't think he would like it if a leader from another country told him how to run the U. S. Maybe that is already happening, who knows who Obama listens to? I am betting that Israel won't be happy about his remarks.

This speech was all over the place and a whole lot of nothing...nothing about how giving terrorist Israel billions of dollars undercuts democracy when Israel uses that money to kill Palestinians, and passes apartheid-based laws where only one ethicity is allowed civilian rights. Obama sat on his butt during the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, which were genuine democratic uprisings, but when Al Qaida trys to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya, who's aid does Obama rush to? Obama starts a war against Gaddafi who engineered the best post-colonial economy in Africa, but then quietly cooperates with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, whose dictators treat their people far worse.

Under this president and his party's 4 year reign of terror in Congress, we've had record unemployment, underemployment, foreclosures, numbers on foodstamps, HEAP, Medicaid, free/reduced school lunches, job loss, and on and on and on. Today we learned another 400,000 PLUS filed new unemployment claims last week, a now regular occurence.

And this president wants to 'invest' a RECORD AMOUNT in the middle east, 'investing' in their 'private sector, because that's where the jobs come from'. Not to mention the now THREE WARS he is presiding over, despite his campaign promises to end the first 2 back in 2010.

Is there ANYONE who still believes this president has THIS country's best interests at heart? Is THIS the wealth redistribution the poor and middle class were counting on? Their jobs, homes, savings, etc., thrown under the bus in the name of 'engagement' to the Muslim world?

Discordant, incoherent and belated, as usual. Gadaffi and Assad, off with their heads. We will confiscate their money (illegal) and tighten up sanctions (so useful in Iraq and Iran). We will support non-democratic nations (Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) in the interest of stability. Yet we will support the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, though we have reason to believe that there is the shadow of the Brotherhood. Again, we will not refer to the camel in the room, Iran. Let me be perfectly clear, our short term plans may conflict with our long term plans because the immediate and future conditions may change. Let me close by saying that I have killed Usama and I have the pictures and DNA to prove it.